NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 reads as under: “Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 reads as under: “Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such

M/S.NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 reads as under: “Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 TTJ 594 (Pune). In the above said case, the Tribunal considered the issue of depreciation allowable on stools, tables, stainless steel racks etc., which were used for laboratory purposes, i.e for the purpose of production or processing of chemical tests in the laboratory leading to the production. The Tribunal took the view that the functionality test of the assets

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.179.09 crores determined by the TPO. Besides the above, the AO also disallowed expenses relating to Gift to Doctors; expenditure incurred on swimming pool, depreciation/addl. Depreciation claimed on certain assets and donation to CM relief fund. 3.3 The assessee filed its objections before Ld DRP. The Ld Dispute Resolution Panel granted relief in respect of donation

M/S CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

price by the TPO and the adjustment made: Arm’s Length Mean Mark-up 29.40% Operating Cost Rs.129,89,30,000/- Arm’s Length Price @129.40% of cost Rs.168,08,20,000/- Price Received Rs.1,38,06,40,000/- Shortfall being adjustment u/s. 92CA Rs.30,01,80,000/- 79. Aggrieved by the aforesaid determination

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

147 TTJ 594 (Pune). In the above said case, the Tribunal considered the issue of depreciation allowable on stools, tables, stainless steel racks etc., which were used for laboratory purposes, i.e for the purpose of production or processing of chemical tests in the laboratory leading to the production. The Tribunal took the view that the functionality test of the assets

M/S.FILTREX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos.469/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2012-13) M/S Filtrex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., #36/4, Raghavendra Nagar, Near Ring Road, 4Th Cross, Hrbr Layout, Bangalore. Pan – Aaacf4091P. …..Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-(3)(1), Bengaluru. …. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Padmchand Khincha, C.A Respondent By : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08-03-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2018 O R D E R

transfer pricing analysis without rejecting the TP analysis performed by the Appellant; iii.Rejecting TNMM applied by Appellant to justify its international transactions with AE on unjustifiable grounds; iv.Not appreciating that Appellant had adopted TNMM at the entity level, in which process, the royalty payment and IT(TP)ANo.469/B/17 12 management fee was considered and accordingly benchmarked; and v. Not appreciating

INVTEVA PRODUCTS INDIA AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

Transfer pricing adjustment without giving benefit of +/- 5 percent as available under proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act Erred in computing the arm's length price of the international transactions, without taking into account the benefit of +/- 5 per cent variation from the mean where it is within the range, which is permitted and opted

M/S. EYGBS (INDIA ) LLP (EARLIER KNOWN AS EYGBS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2342/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustment suo-moto offered by the assessee. The relevant findings of Tribunal are as under:— '17. We have heard both the parties. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to reproduce section 10A(1). "Section 10A. Special provision in respect of newly established undertakings in free trade zone, etc.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

Transfer Pricing adjustments. 4. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.3.2021. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 29.04.2021 declaring taxable income of Rs.91,34,83,890/- (declared in the original return of income). Thereafter, assessee asked for the reasons recorded for the issue

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 10A." Thus it is clear that the Tribunal has followed the earlier order for the Assessment Year 2004-05 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. Following the earlier order of this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

section 92C, the\narm's length price in relation to an international transaction 22[or a\nspecified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the\nfollowing methods, being the most appropriate method, in the\nfollowing manner, namely:\n(a) - (d) xx\nXX\n(e) Transactional Net Margin Method, by which,-\n(i) the net profit margin realised

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. JAGADISH N HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

section 2(22)(e) of the Act shall have application, on fulfillment of all other conditions, in respect to any payment made after 31.5.1987, by a closely held company, of any sum by way of advance or Loan to: (a) a shareholder, who is the beneficial owner of shares holding not Less than 10% of the voting power

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

section 2(22)(e) of the Act shall have application, on fulfillment of all other conditions, in respect to any payment made after 31.5.1987, by a closely held company, of any sum by way of advance or Loan to: (a) a shareholder, who is the beneficial owner of shares holding not Less than 10% of the voting power

M/S TYCO FIRE & SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3363/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Tyco Fire & The Assistant Security India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of D-601, Rmz Contennial, Income Tax, Kundalahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct0087C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Dated October 26, 2018 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 20, 2018 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Drp") U/S 144C (5) Of The Act (`The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law:

section 92CA by further proposing following additions: Transfer Pricing addition Rs.92,66,37,986/- Disallowed Salary paid to Expat employees in Foreign Currency Rs. 6,60,19,470/- Reimbursement of expenses Rs.12,34,39,147

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

Price under section 92CA of the Act on 30.03.2022. Several notices were issued under section 142(1) of the Act to the Assessee, which have been duly responded to. 3.7 The TPO passed the order under section 92CA(3) on 29.01.2023, proposing an adjustment of Rs. 348,78,65,338 as follows: Nature of Sl. proposed TP Description Amount

M/S INATECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority; (e)records relating to the draft order; (f) evidence collected by, or caused to he collected by, it; and (g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by, it (7) The Dispute Resolution Panel may, before issuing any directions referred to in sub-section (5),- (a) make such further